Re: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing

["kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

RE: [ga] Tiered (Variable) PricingSo, what do these successful TLDs have in common?  Some are for-profit, and some are not, 

Which successful tlds are not for profit?

I agree with you that the only tlds being approved are ones that will never be competitive.


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Paul Stahura 
  To: Gomes, Chuck ; Tim Ruiz 
  Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx ; Karl Auerbach 
  Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 6:51 PM
  Subject: RE: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing


  I agree we've learned a lot since back then, but in some sense I also think we've seemed to have learned nothing.

  Did we really learn that .areo and .museum would not work out, or did we really already know/suspect that?

  Agreed, that each person has their own definition of "work out", but I think that (what is a successful TLD) is just another thing, after all these experimental (in my opinion) TLDs, that we didn't learn and still don't know.  

   

  In my mind, .com is the most successful TLD, followed by .net, .org, and some country code TLDs, and maybe one from the first round.

  I think that is obvious, though you can say ".museum" satisfies the needs of its internet community, and I would agree with you.

  But what is the size of that community compared to the entire internet?  not much.

  So, what do these successful TLDs have in common?  Some are for-profit, and some are not, so that isn't it.  Some are RRP some are EPP, that's isn't it. Some are US-based, some are not.  One is third-level.  Some are newer some are older.

  Hmmm.. what can it be? 

  They are all open, not "sponsored" or "restricted".  

  OPEN.

  That's one thing we've learned.

  It seems to me that the "sponsored" and "restricted" (I call them "hobbled") TLDs need the most "flexibility" as you call it, tweaking, changes, etc post root-insertion.

  That's another thing we've learned.

  Why do we keep doing those kind? Because for some reason, so far, in order to get in the root, you need to propose a "hobbled" TLD (such as one for a micro-community).

  That's a third thing we've learned.

  Then we all are so surprised when these TLDs say they need flexibility, changes (like not separating registry and registrar), whatever, in order to "better serve their community".

  I think even they (the "sponsors") didn't learn that. My guess is that they already knew, or at least suspected, it.

   

  But anyway..

  I'm curious as to which registries those quotes are from.

  I know for sure that more than a few large registrars are extremely interested in "call-center-intensive market" contrary to the 2nd quote.

  Look at the call center size of GoDaddy, register.com and Network Solutions.

   

  Also, please explain further the first right of refusal for registrars you mention below.

   

   

   

   


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
  Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 8:35 AM
  To: Paul Stahura; Tim Ruiz
  Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Karl Auerbach
  Subject: RE: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing

   

  Paul,

   

  Thanks for participating in the discussion.

   

  The fact that the small sTLDs knew they would have to work through registrars when they signed up does not mean that the required distribution model is the best one in all cases.  We have learned a lot since that requirement was put in place.

   

  Also, as someone else pointed out on this list ( I think it may have been Mike Palage), not all TLDs need to be for-profit businesses.  There is nothing wrong with a gTLD designed to meet the needs of a specific community.  Should such proposals be denied because they aren't a viable business in the big corporate world?

   

  Because I do not have first hand information about the business operations of the small sTLDs, I soliticed input from them.  Here are a couple points they communicated to me that I think are worthy of consideration.

   

  ". . we have a small number of registrars (had five now may getting to  about 8) there can be hardly talk about competition, particularly if one registrar has a majority of names in the TLD anyway. The registrars for the most part sit and wait for business to come to them, so, this model converts sponsorship or any start up TLD registry into a charity organisation set up to support registrars eating up resources that could be better used for the benefit of those who use Internet."

   

  "we are getting many registrant (or pre-registrant) queries about cheap or simple "starter" packages for people and SOHO that have never been in the internet before; many (registrars) are not interested in such call-center-intensive market but registries like (ours), being a non-profit foundation, is indeed interested as one of our goals is to expand the use and knowledge of advanced (beyond email and web) internet tools (upload content, create sites, etc) as a way to develop the information society."

   

  On the latter point, I know that many registrars offer "start-up" services, but if those registrars do not elect to support a given TLD, then that makes it more difficult for registrants in that TLD.

   

  No, I am not saying that these registries would be "killing it" if they were allowed to be a registrar, nor am I saying that they would stop using the registrars that are currently offering their TLD.  I suspect that these organizations probably don't even have a goal of "killing it" as you express it.  But they would like to maximize the service provided for members of their unique community.  Is that unreasonable?

   

  Why can't constructive discussions about the distribution model happen?  Why are registrars in general opposed to this?  The RyC has suggested such options as a first right of refusal for registrars?  We are not trying to limit registrar opportunities.  But in cases where registrars elect not to provide much support, shouldn't the sponsors be given some flexibility to better meet their community member needs?

   

  Chuck Gomes
  VeriSign Information Services

   

     


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From: Paul Stahura [mailto:stahura@xxxxxxxx] 
    Sent: Monday, September 04, 2006 3:48 PM
    To: Gomes, Chuck; Tim Ruiz
    Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Karl Auerbach
    Subject: RE: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing

    Chuck, they (these small TLD registries) knew that when they signed up.

    Maybe they should not have proposed hobbled TLDs, or maybe they shouldn't have been granted them, but they did and they were.

    All these small registries have more than one registrar signed up with them, don't they?

    Are you saying that if the registry gets one more registrar (themselves) all of a sudden they'll be killing it?

     

    I agree with you that it is not that complicated.

    On this rest of this subject I agree with Tim.

     


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
    Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 8:32 AM
    To: Tim Ruiz
    Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Karl Auerbach
    Subject: RE: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing

     

    Tim,

    They are not but they are required to only sell domains thru ICANN accedited registrars so registrars elect not to provide reasonable support foe given TLD, what good would it be to drum up business.  This really isn't that complicated.

    Chuck


    Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com)

     -----Original Message-----
    From:   Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx]
    Sent:   Friday, September 01, 2006 10:49 AM Eastern Standard Time
    To:     Gomes, Chuck
    Cc:     ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Karl Auerbach
    Subject:        RE: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing

    Chuck, I'm a little confused. Where in any contract or policy are the registries restricted from drumming up business for themselves? While it's true that a registry must have a least one registrar on board to sell domain names (directly or by referral), there is nothing I am aware of that restricts registries from promoting their TLD. In fact, I am not aware of any registry, even the smallest sTLD, that does not currently have multiple registrars signed on.

    The only reason any competition whatsoever exists today is because there are price controls on the limited number of gTLDs who must sell through registrars who truly do compete. It's that paradigm that has reduced the cost of domain names from a minimum up front investment of $70 to just a few bucks. The continued introduction of new gTLDs may change that paradigm some day, but we are not there yet.


    Tim




            -------- Original Message --------
            Subject: RE: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing
            From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
            Date: Fri, September 01, 2006 8:33 am
            To: "Karl Auerbach" <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
            Cc: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
           
            You are totally missing the point Karl.  Nobody is suggesting that ICANN
            guarantee business success or prop of registries but a registry's hands
            should not be tied so they cannot drum up busiess themselves.  Right
            now, they must rely on registrars to do that for them and if registrars
            elect not to do it, they are stuck.
           
            Chuck Gomes
            VeriSign Information Services
           
           
           
            > -----Original Message-----
            > From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
            > Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 7:37 PM
            > To: Gomes, Chuck
            > Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
            > Subject: Re: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing
            >
            > Gomes, Chuck wrote:
            >
            > > If a small registry is reqired to sell registrations only
            > through ICANN
            > > accredited registrars but registrars don't what to support
            > their TLD,
            > > what are their options?  Right now there are none.
            >
            > What is ICANN supposed to do?  Guarantee business success?  If small
            > TLD's don't have the ability to drum up business sufficient
            > to attract
            > the interest of registrars then I see no reason for you or I
            > to have an
            > ICANN or ICANN rules that prop's them up.
            >
            > Zombie TLD's don't need life support.
            >
            > ICANN *requires* a registry-registrar model.  Why?  It's not the only
            > way, but it is *the* only ICANN way.  (For example, in my .ewe system
            > there are no registrars at all, and name sales are for terms that are
            > essentially permanent.)
            >
            > There is no damage if a small registry goes away.  That is, assuming
            > that the customers had alternatives, which is not the case today.
            >
            > For the legacy TLDs, in which customers (such as myself, who have had
            > domain names since before there was a Network Solutions, a
            > Verisign, or
            > an ICANN) are trapped and have no choice but to endure else abandon
            > their net identities.  In those TLD's regulation for the benefit of
            > those users, and solely for the benefit of those users, is necessary.
            >
            > I've long suggested that in order to minimize the burden on everyone
            > that those legacy TLDs (.com/.net/.org/.edu) that the registries be
            > required once each year to submit signed statement from an
            > independent
            > auditor stating that those registries engage in business asset
            > preservation practices (not merely written, but actually used and
            > tested) so that a successor-in-interest or the customers
            > could, if they
            > chose to do so, resurrect the registration assets of a failed
            > registry.
            >
            > --karl--
            >
            >



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition.
  Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/438 - Release Date: 9/5/06